party, the risk of injury from such acts is found to be one of the risks incidental to the employment."

§ 263. Accidents Sustained in Going to and from the Place of Employment.-A.-Going to Work in Own Conveyance.— Where an employee was injured when his motorcycle collided with a street car while he was on his way to get certain materials needed in the course of the employment, it was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. The court saying that the going for the goods was strictly within his dutics. The fact that he rode upon a motorcycle which he commonly used in performing errands and in going to and from his home does not alter the case. He had the right to use such instrumentalities as were best fitted to perform his master's work.13

Where an employee was struck and injured by an automobile while waiting to board a street car, in going from one job to another, it was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment; the court saying: "We think it is clear fron the record that the employment of the deceased was to go from place to place to trim trees, and that in the discharge of these duties it was not only necessary for him to supervise the work, but it was necessary, in the course of his employment, to proceed from one job to the other, adopting such means of locomotion as he might desire. * Being clearly of the opinion that the record warrants the conclusion that at the time of the injury the deceased was within the ambit of his employment, we also think that it is a justifiable conclusion that the accident can be fairly traced to his employment as a contributing and proximate cause. It is true that in going from one place to another, as was his duty, he naturally was compelled to assume risks not in any wise connected with the trimming, planting, and treating of shade trees. But his employment extended further than this and necessarily obliged him, in the discharge of his duties, to go from place to place, and in so doing to assume the risks of traffic upon the streets. Where employees are compelled during the course of their

13. Coster v. Thompson's Hotel Co., 102 Neb. 585, 168 N. W. 191, 16 N. C. C. A. 905.

employment to travel about the streets, it does not seem to us to be unreasonable to say that the danger of being struck by street cars, automobiles, and traffic of every description should be taken account of. We think it must be said that the very nature of the occupation of the deceased itself exposed him to the unusual risk and danger of an accident of this nature."' 14

A claim adjuster was injured while riding on one of his employer's cars to the place of his employment, after serving a subpoena. In reversing an award in claimant's favor, the court said: "To be within the legislative intent, the work or occupation must subject the employee to the hazards contemplated by this law. The decedent was riding upon the car, not as an employee in the performance of a duty relating to the car, but was a passenger for his own personal convenience. He was subject to the same hazards as any other passenger in the car, and the hazard came, not because he was operating a railroad, but because he was riding in a car, and the hazards, so far as the accident is concerned, were no greater upon the car than they would have been upon a bus or any public place where people assemble. He was not necessary to or an incident to the operation of the car, and had no duty upon the car. * * The mere fact that an employee is in the service of a railroad company does not bring him within the act; he must be engaged in the hazardous work, or in some way be subject to the hazards arising from the nature of the work." 15

Ordinarily when an employee is injured while traveling to or from his place of work, and is not paid for the time consumed in going and coming, the means of conveyance not being furnished by the employer and the employee having departed from or not yet reached the employer's premises, the injury does not arise out of the employment.16

14.

Kunze v. Detroit Shade Tree Co., 192 Mich. 435, 158 N. W. 851, 15 N. C. C. A. 253.

15. In re Brown, 173 App. Div. 432, 159 N. Y. Supp. 1047, 15 N. C. C. A. 290.

16. De Constantine v. Public Service Comm., 75 W. Va. 32, 83 S. E. 88, L. R. A. 1916A 329; Leveroni v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 219 Mass. 488, 107 N. E. 349.

Where the duties of a collector of accounts for defendant required him to go to another town, and he was injured on his way there, his injury arose out of and in the course of the employ*ment.17

An employee, who was engaged as a repairer of musical instruments, was permitted, but not obliged, to do work at his home, and on the morning in question he had been working in his own shop on work taken home the previous evening and he was injured by slipping on ice while going to take a car to go to his employer's store, it was held that he was not injured in the course of his employment, and the injury did not arise out of his contract of employment.18

Where a workman who had been engaged to load a van, was promised employment in unloading if he was there upon the arrival of the van, met with an accident while cycling to the place, it was held that the accident did not arise out of or in the course of the employment.19

A workman, having missed his work train, was an his way to get a pass in order to overtake the work train, when he was injured. It was held that the relation of master and servant did not exist at the time of the injury.20

A city employee, while going to his place of work, fell because of a defective sidewalk, and suffered a broken kneecap. Blood poisoning set in and caused death. In allowing compensation the court said: "In the instant case, when the servant reported to his foreman and received his instructions for the day and proceeded to carry out these instructions by starting for the place where he was to work, we think the relation of master and servant commenced, and that in walking to the place of work the servant

17. In re Raynes, 64 Ind. App.-, 118 N. E. 387, 1 W. C. L. J. 562. 18. Indus. Com. v. Anderson, (Colo.), 169 Pac. 135, 1 W. C. L. J. 305, 15 N. C. C. A. 249.

19. Perry v. Anglo American Decorating Co., (1910), 3 B. W. C. C. 310. Slade v. Taylor, (1915), W. C. & Ins. Rep. 53, 15 N. C. C. A. 250.

20. Missouri, K. & T R. Co. v. Hendricks, 49 Tex. Civ. App. 314, 4 N. C. C. A. 114, 108 S. W. 745.

was performing a service growing out of and incidental to his employment." 21

Where an employee is required to go to outside places to work and to return to the employer's office to report, he is at all such times acting in the course of his employment, and is entitled to compensation if injured by accident at such times.22

An employee injured while going aboard or leaving his ship, using the proper means, is entitled to compensation, provided his injury arises out of such employment, but if he is injured on the dock he is not within the protection of the compensation acts.22 Where a sailor was drowned while returning to his ship, after a trip on shore not connected with his employment, the accident was held not to have arisen out of the employment.24

Where a miner sustained injuries on his way to work, it was held not to be an accident arising out of the employment.25

A workman was given a return ticket to a dock railway and ordered to report on board a ship at seven o'clock the next morning. He made use of the ticket, and when crossing the gangway he fell between the dock wall and the ship and was injured. His pay would have commenced when he reported on board the ship. It was held that the giving of the ticket was merely a gratuitous act on the part of the employers and imposed no duty on the part of the employee to go by train, and that therefore the accident did not arise out of, nor in the course of the employment.20

A conductor alighted from one of his employer's cars, when he was returning to work, and was struck and killed by another

21. City of Milwaukee v. Althoff et al., 156 Wis. 68, 145 N. W. 238, 4 N. C. C. A. 110, L. R. A. 1916A 327.

22. Coleman v. Guilfoy Cornice Wks., Cal. I. A. C. 1 Nat. Comp. Jour. (1914) 18, 7 N. C. C. A. 428; Turgeon v. Fox Co., 1 Cal. I. A. C. D. (1914) 7, 7 N. C. C. A. 429.

23. Boucher v. Olson & Mahoney Steamship Co., 1 Cal. I. A. C. D. (1914) 12, 7 N. C. C. A. 426; Gardiner v. St. of Cal. Printing Office, 1 Cal. I. A. C. D. (1914)4, 4 N. C. C. A.859.

24. Hyndman v. Craig & Co., 44 Irish Law Times Rep. 11, 4 B. W. C. C. 438 (1910) 3 N. C. C. A. 273.

25. Anderson v. Fife Coal Co., Ltd., 1910 Court of Sessions, 8, 47 Scot Law Rep. 3, 3 B. W. C. C. 539, 3 N. C. C. A. 272.

26. Nolan v. Porter & Sons, 4 N. C. C. A. 113, 2 B. W. C. C. 106.

car.

The court held that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment, for the risks to which the employee was exposed on his way to work were in no way connected with his employment. The employer not providing a means of conveying the employee to work, he was therefore a mere passenger on the car. 27

An injury occurring while the employee was riding a bicycle, has been held to arise out of the employment, where the use of the bicycle was to further the master's business, which could be done better by the use of the bicycle. As where a salesman and collector while riding a bicycle in pursuit of his employment was kicked in the knee by a passing horse. 28 But if it is used merely to accommodate the workman, a different rule prevails. Where a workman, going from one farm to another on a bicycle to look after cattle, was injured while so riding, he was not injured by an accident arising out of the employment.29

Where an employee was injured while boarding a street car to return from an errand, on which he had been sent by his employer, it was held that the injury was received in the course of the employment. 30

A janitor who was ordered to report back as quickly as possible after getting his lunch, took a street car and was injured on his way back to work. It was held that he was away from his place of employment for his own purposes and returning by a means of conveyance of his own choosing. His acts while away were in no way connected with his employment nor under the direction of his employer; and therefore not in the course of his employment at the time of the injury. The claim was disallowed. 31

27. McCabe v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., S. D. R. Vol. 8, pg. 407, App. Div. N. Y.

28. McNiece v. Singer Sewing Mach. Co., (1911), S. S. 13, 48 Scot. L. R. 15, 4 B. W. C. C. 351.

29. Green v. Shaw, (1912), 1 I. R. 480 (1912) W. C. R. 25, 46 Ir. L. T. 18, 5 B. W. C. C. 573.

30. Brodie v. Reo Pac. Co., 1 Cal. Ind. A. C. 415 (1914), 12 N. C. C. A. 389; Wheeler v. Maryland Casualty Co., 3 Mass. Wkm. Comp. Cas. 433, 1914, 12 N. C. C. A. 389.

31. In re Frisch, Ohio Ind. Comm. No. 11, 38 (1915) 12 N. C. C. A. 389.